Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

Full text of "Marx and Gandhi Were Liberals: Feminism and the "radical" Left"

See other formats


MARX AND GANDHI WERE LIBERALS 

— FEMINISM AND THE “RADICAL” LEFT 


by Andrea Dworkin 


Dedicated 


UNIVERSITY 

to the memory of Virginia Woolf 

E.S. BIRD LIBRARY 


They [feminists] were fighting the same 
enemy that you are fighting and for the 
same reasons. They were fighting the 
tyranny of the patriarchal state as you 
were fighting the tyranny of the Fascist 
state And abroad the monster has 
come more openly to the surface. There 
is no mistaking him there. He has 
widened his scope. He is interfering now 
with your liberty; he is dictating how 
you shall live; he is making distinctions 
not merely between the sexes , but 
between the races. You are feeling in 
your own persons what your mothers 
felt when they were shut out , when they 
were shut up, because they were 
women. Now you are being shut out , 
you are being shut up, because you are 
Jews, because you are democrats, 
because of race, because of religion. 

The whole iniquity of dictatorship, 
whether in Oxford or Cambridge , in 
Whitehall or Downing Street, against 
Jews or against women, in England or in 
Germany, in Italy or in Spain, is now 
apparent to you. 

Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas 

“ Ho mes are the real places of the wo men 
who are now compelling men to be idle. 
It is time the Government insisted upon 
employers giving work to more men, 
thus enabling them to marry the women 
they cannot now approach. Place 
beside it another quotation. “ There are 
two worlds in the life of the nation, the 
world of men and the world of women. 
Nature has done well to entrust the man 
with the care of his family and the 
nation. The woman s world is her fam- 
ily, her husband, her children, and her 
home One is written in English, the 
other in German . But where is the differ- 
ence? Are they not both saying the same 
thing? Are they not both the voices of 
Dictators, whether they speak English 
or German, and are we not all agreed 
that the Dictator when we meet him 
abroad is a very dangerous as well as a 
very ugly animal? And he is here among 
us, raising his ugly head, spitting his 
poison in the hear I of England. Is it 
not from this egg, to quote Mr Wells 
again, that “ the practical obliteration of 
[our] freedom by Fascists or Nazis will 
spring? And is not the woman who has 




to breathe that poison and to fight that 
insect, secretly and without arms 
fighting the Fascist or Nazi as surely as 
those who fight him with arms ? And 
must not that fight wear down her 
strength and exhaust her spirit? Should 
we not help her to crush him in our own 
country before we ask her to help us to 
crush him abroad? And what right have 
we, Sir, to trumpet our ideals of freedom 
and justice to other countries when we 
can shake out from our most respectable 
newspapers any day of the week eggs 
like these? 

Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas 

It is the figure of a man, some say, others 
deny, that he is Man himself, the quin- 
tessence of virility, the perfect type of 
which all the others are imperfect adum- 
brations. He is a man certainly. His eyes 
are glazed; his eyes glare. His body, 
which is braced in an unnatural posi- 
tion, is tightly cased in a uniform. Upon 
the breast of that uniform are sewn sev- 
eral medals and other mystic symbols. 
II is hand is upon a sword. He is called in 
German and Italian Fuhrer or Duce; in 
our own language Tyrant or Dictator 
And behind him lie ruined houses and 
dead bodies - men, women, and chil- 
dren... It suggests a connection and 
for us a very important connection. It 
suggests that the public and private 
worlds are inseparably connected; that 
the tyrannies and servilities of the one 
are the tyrannies and servilities of the 
other It suggests that we cannot 
dissociate ourselves from that figure but 
are ourselves that figure. It suggests that 
we are not passive spectators doomed to 
unresisting obedience but by our 
thoughts and actions can ourselves 
change that figure. 

Virginia Woolf, Three Guineas 

Three Guineas was published in June 
1938. It is the product of a very odd 
mind and, I think, of a very odd state of 
mind. It was intended as a continuation 
of A Room of One’s Own, but it was 
written in afar less persuasive, a far less 
playful mood. It was a protest against 
oppression, a genuine protest denounc- 
ing real evils and, to the converted, 
Virginia did not preach in vain. A great 
many women wrote to express their 
enthusiastic approval; but her close 
friends were silent, and if not silent, 
critical. Vita did not like it, and 
Maynard Keynes was both angry and 
contemptuous, it was, he declared, a 
silly argument and not very well written. 
What really seemed wrong with the book 


Adapted from, an article originally published in American Report. Copyright ® 1 973 by Andrea Dworkin. All rights reserved by the author 


Ha 

wsq 

I>%4% 
in o 


- and I am speaking here of my own 
reactions at the time -was the attempt to 
involve a discussion of women s rights 
with the far more agonising and immedi- 
ate question of what we were to do in 
order to meet the ever-growing menace 
of Fascism and war The connection 
between the two questions seemed tenu- 
ous and the positive suggestions wholly 
inadequate. 

Quentin Bell, Virginia Woolf: A Biography 


CK 

4 

sa 



(\J 

o 


30 



to 



rO 


<\J 

00 


*> 

n 


10 

& 


n 

n 


00 



rO 

** 

* 

O' 

<0 

J 

n 



% 

> 

> 

o 

* 



*• 

M 


o 

(t 


It 

to 


I have quoted at some length from Virginia Woolf ’s 
Three Guineas because it is unlikely that those on 
the Left who consider the causes of war and act to 
end it know the book. It was maligned as silly drivel 
by Leftists in 1938 and today it is, let us be polite, 
ignored by most political people. 

In 1938, Virginia Woolf was a prominent (though 
endlessly condescended to) artist of the first magni- 
tude. Even though her formal preoccupations allied 
her with James Joyce, as a woman she was placed 
without effort at the end of a very short list: the 
Bronte sisters, Austen, the two Georges, Woolf. 
Even though her political preoccupations entitled 
her to recognition as an original mind, as a serious 
revolutionary thinker, both the quality and the con- 
tent of her analysis went ignored. In 1938 Woolf was 
3 years away from her last conscientious act, sui- 
cide, the last resort of many a prophet without any 
real community 

Three Guineas is the first feminist analysis of 
what war is and how to stop it. Woolf is relentless in 
her insistence that war is a male activity not only 
because men make war, but because war is a direct 
extension of masculine values and behavior She 
outlines, relentlessly, the total exclusion of women 
from all the institutions of decision-making and 
power in a patriarchy She describes what 
machismo is (though she did not use the word), and 
how its public manifestation in war-making is a 
somber accurate reflection of its presence in what 
she calls “the private house,” the house where men 
rule and women serve. She shows how the hetero- 
sexual man-woman model is the basic model for 
patterns of dominance and submission which we 
characterize in the public sphere as tyranny. She 
demonstrates that the Fuhrer and II Duce are Hus- 
bands, violating without conscience nations of 
women. She insists that the Nazis and the English- 
men who despise them are a brotherhood with a 
shared appetite for illegitimate power war games, 
uniforms, wealth, conquest: in a word, dominance. 
She says that to stop war men must change the 
behavior of men. In her analysis, humankind must 
destroy patriarchy itself. 

It is no wonder then, that Keynes and other 
prominent Lefties of that time were angry Af ter all, 
a crucial part of the war dynamic is the conviction 
that there are good guys and bad guys. Woolf made 
clear that, in fact, there were bad guys and worse 
guys. Life under the bad guys was bad, and under 
the worse guys it would be worse. 



3 2911 


02003371 8 


The attitude of the Left has not changed very 
much since 1938. Sexism, it is true, is affixed with 
liberal good will onto the tail end of that imposing 
leftist litany: imperialism, colonialism, capitalism, 
racism, and, for the ladies, sexism. Woolf s original 
analysis and subsequent feminist analyses go, let us 
be polite, ignored, not assimilated, not acted upon. 

The citizens of the male-dominated Left are still 
complied in the institutions which oppress women, 
still accept the phallic identity of dominance (male- 
ness) which demands, in order to continue to exist, 
submission (femaleness); still actively perpetuate 
the patriarchal forms of husband-wife, family 
headed by a father, church, and state; still demand 
privilege and confuse it with freedom. To the entext 
that the Left is committed to patriarchal forms, that 
is, to a very great extent, it cannot help but perpetu- 
ate the values it purports to oppose. To the extent 
that the Left is not consciously and conscientiously 
feminist, that is, to a very great extent, it cannot 
help but perpetuate the same forms of dominance 
and submission that it purports, in other areas, to 
oppose. To the extent that Leftists do not recognize 
the real dimension of their patriarchal alliances, 
that is, to a very great extent, they cannot help but 
peqoetuate patriarchy, that system of male owner- 
ship which is the parent form of fascism. 

As feminists, we must view the nonfeminist Left 
as a reform movement. We must marvel at its moral 
bankruptcy at the poverty of its revolutionary con- 
sciousness. Humankind is still, for that movement, 
mankind most literally The Worker is still, or 
increasingly, a metaphor for phallic hero muscle, 
the center of the leftist preoccupation with images 
of virility Women are ignored, or patronized. Lib- 
eral gestures of good will are made, when we are 
shrill enough or where we are fashionable enough, 
as long as we do not interfere with the “real revolu- 
tion.” Increasingly, we understand that we are the 
real revolution. 


2. Patriarchy and Sexism 


Economy is the bone , politics is the flesh 
watch who they beat and who they eat , 
watch who they relieve themselves on , 
watch who they own. 

The rest is decoration. 

Marge Piercy 

[my nightmare] looks like a village lit 
with blood I where all the fathers are crying: 
My son is mine. 

Adrienne Rich 

Wives, submit yourselves unto your hus- 
bands for the husband is the head of 
the wife, even as Christ is the head of the 
Church. 

Ephesians 5:23-24 


2 


Sexism is a new word, one which has been assim- 
ilated with remarkable ease into common usage. It 
is meant to refer to systematic cultural, political, 
and psychological prejudice against women. It 
denotes biological differentiation/inferiority, just as 
racism denotes racial differentiation/inferiority It 
was coined so that we could refer to the general 
cultural, political, and psychological conviction that 
women are inferior to men, and that womanly or 
female, qualities (as a male-supremacist culture 
defines them) are inferior to manly, or male, quali- 
ties. Since in our culture homosexual men are asso- 
ciated with femaleness, or femininity that is, in 
being penetrated they take on female stigma, the 
word “sexism” early on came to denote prejudice 
against homosexual men. In fact, the word is used 
so promiscuously that its meaning has become 
entirely vague: most often it denotes prejudice 
against a person on the basis of gender or sexual 
orientation, with no intrinsic reference to male 
supremacy or female inferiority. As a result, “I hate 
all men,” or “I hate all faggots,” or “Women? I guess 
they ought to exercise Pussy Power ” are all in some 
sense sexist. 

This wonderfully confuses things, and we can 
begin to understand why the word “sexism” is affixed 
without pain to the list of leftist no no s. Properly 
manipulated, the word is meaningless because it no 
longer makes any reference to the actuality of 
power Anyone can be against it, and not many are 
for it. One can be against it without changing one’s 
identity or behavior as the oppressor — which is, of 
course, what we mean when we talk disparagingly 
about liberals. Just as liberals are against racism but 
refuse to give up power which derives from their 
own white supremacy, so Leftists are against sexism 
but refuse to give up power which derives from 
their own male supremacy How then do we separ- 
ate the feminists from the boys? 

Men are powerful and women are powerless 
because we live in a patriarchy Pater means owner 
possessor or master The basic social unit of patri- 
archy is the family The word “family comes from 
the Oscan famel which means servant, slave, or 
possession. Pater familias means “owner of slaves. ” 
Common fathers and ordinary priests derive their 
authority as paters. 

“Patriarchy is the name of the political and cul- 
tural system which oppresses women. To be for the 
liberation of women is to be against patriarchy no 
lesser commitment is a serious one. In a patriarchy 
all civil and religious authority (power) belongs by 
birthright to men. Patriarchy is a system of owner- 
ship wherein women and children are owned. Patri- 
archy is the original authoritarian model , the molec- 
ular totalitarian model, and every tyrannical form is 
derived from it. To be against tyranny and for free- 
dom is to oppose, to resist, to refuse to be complied 
in, patriarchal institutions. The destruction of the 
master-slave political scenario, however we 
describe it (capitalist-worker white-black, rich- 
poor etc.), requires the destruction of the source of 
that scenario patriarchy The destruction of the 


psychologies and behaviors which we call dominant 
(master male) and submissive (slave, female), or 
aggressor-victim, demands the destruction of the 
source of those mental sets and behaviors — patri- 
archy Ending forever the war of the powerful 
against the powerless and ending the smaller 
wars of bad men against worse men means dis- 
mantling the machinery of patriarchy 

Liberals, god bless them, are against sexism and 
for some measure of positive reform. They want the 
bad men to stop fighting worse men here and there; 
they want The Workers, men mostly, to control the 
means of production. Revolutionaries are out to 
destroy that system of oppression, the source of a 
million tyrannies, called patriarchy 

3. Patriarchy and Violence 

I am the center of an atrocity. 

Sylvia Plath 

We are effectively destroying ourselves 
by violence masquerading as love. 

R.D. Laing 

We talked of the League of Nations 
and the prospects of peace and disarma- 
ment. On this subject he was not so 
much militarist as martial. The diffi- 
culty to which he could find no answer 
was that if permanent peace were ever 
achieved, and armies and navies ceased 
to exist, there would be no outlet for the 
manly qualities which fighting devel- 
oped, and that human physique and 
human character would deteriorate. 
from the. biography of Anthony (Viscount 
Knebworth) by the Earl of Lvtton 

Violence is interwoven into the social fabric 
because it is the substance of sexuality as we know 
it. Dominance and submission, he and she. Aggres- 
sion, conquest, and brutality are the defining mas- 
culine characteristics. War, feminists believe, is a 
function of masculine (phallic) identity The vocab- 
ulary of war — aggression, conquest, dominance — 
is the vocabulary of “healthy” male virility. We talk 
of the rape of a country and it is not an accident that 
when soldiers rape a country, they also rape its 
women. The Viet Nam genocide was characterized 
by massive, repeated attempts to defoliate the 
earth. Mother Nature herself. Nixon s Christmas 
bombing message used language which was highly 
sexual and sexist. We know that these connections 
exist, and anyone who is concerned with violence 
and ending it as the substance of human relation 
must speak to them. 

It is incredible to feminists that the notion of 
violence as a function of male sexual identity is not 
of pressing, burning concern to those who are 
against, they say violence. How we ask, can one 
be against violence without being against the com- 
mon, daily violence which defines male-female 


3 


relation? How can one be against war there and 
celebrate it here , on our bodies? Real opposition to 
violence would necessitate specific attention to 
crimes of violence against women. Wife-beating 
and general physical assault by men against women 
are endemic in Amerika as elsewhere. Wife- 
beating, in particular, is a crime which remains 
invisible, sanctioned by laws which give the hus- 
band authority over the wife. Violent rape is rife on 
city streets, epidemic; and it is also common in 
so-called private, personal relationships between 
men and women. Women are raped, and women 
are forced to prostitution, and women are 
assaulted, and acts of violence against women 
everywhere on every level are common, so com- 
mon that they are not worthy of notice, so common 
that they are called “normal” and romanticized as 
love. 

How is it possible, we ask, to act against war 
without acting against violence? And how is it possi- 
ble to act against violence without acting against 
male violence against women? Feminists do not 
think that it is possible and yet when we look for 
those on the Left who oppose violence, they say, in 
our ranks, we do not find them. 

4. The Means of Production 
and the Original Capital 

We know that two evils clearly pre-date 
corporate capitalism, and have post- 
dated socialist revolutions: sexism and 
racism - so we know that a male- 
dominated socialist revolution in econ- 
omic and even cultural terms, were it to 
occur tomorrow, would be no revolu- 
tion, but only another coup d'etat 
among men. 

Robin Morgan 

l assure you I am not an enemy of 
women. I am very favourable to their 
employment as labourers or in other 
menial capacity. 

an industrialist to Emily Davis, 
who wanted help in funding 
a school for women 

In one world the sons of educated men 
work as civil servants, judges, soldiers, 
and are paid for that work; in the other 
world, the daughters of educated men 
work as wives, mothers, daughters - but 
are they not paid for that work? Is the 
work of a mother, of a wife, of a 
daughter, worth nothing to the nation in 
solid cash? 

Virginia Woolf 

The women say, shame on you. They say 
you are domesticated, forcibly fed, like 
geese in the yard of the farmer who fat- 
tens them. They say, you strut about, 
you have no other care than to enjoy the 


good things your masters hand out, soli- 
citous for your well-being so long as they 
stand to gain. They say, there is no more 
distressing spectacle than that of slaves 
who take pleasure in their servile state. 

They say, you are far from possessing 
the pride of those wild birds who refuse 
to hatch their eggs when they have been 
imprisoned. They say, take an example 
from the wild birds who, even if they 
mate with the males to relieve their bore- 
dom, refuse to reproduce so long as they 
are not at liberty. 

Monique Wittig, Les Guerilleres 

On the Left, bright young men are fond of saying 
that women will be liberated when workers control 
the means of production. It is very hard for us to 
explain, though it does seem perfectly obvious, that 
sexism is not a functon of capitalism. Corporate or 
monopoly capitalism is this eras manifestation, 
sophisticated and virtually uncontrollable, of patri- 
archal ownership. Men owned women, women 
were capital; men owned women and the children 
that women produced; men owned women as 
wives, concubines, slaves, and whatever women 
produced, men owned. There was one man and he 
owned several women and their children and what- 
ever they all produced. There was one man and he 
owned families who worked his land, and in those 
families women were owned first by the man who 
owned the families, then by the man who headed 
her particular family. He was the master, and mas- 
ter became his title, then a common form of 
address. Women were capital; later other commod- 
ities, then money, substituted for women occasion- 
ally, then more often. Today there is corporate 
capitalism in Amerika and state capitalism in Rus- 
sia. When we look at the failure of the socialist 
revolution in Russia we see clearly the inability of 
patriarchs to give up the ownership of women. 
When that basic totalitarian form of ownership sur- 
vives, wherever it survives, the whole motley 
gamut of totalitarian behavior survives with it. 

When we look at the Left in Amerika here and 
now, what we see strikes terror in our hearts: 
mostly there is capitalism — the private ownership 
of women with token reform in the division of labor; 
where there is socialism, there is the collective 
male ownership of women, usually without even 
token reform in division of labor. 

I am convinced, as I ponder why Leftists are so 
absolutely and blissfully stuck on the notion that 
freedom for all is when the workers control the 
means of production, that the Left has an almost 
pathological attachment to the mythic notion of The 
Worker as a figure of virility. There, think intellec- 
tuals, he is: driving trucks, laying bricks, building 
roads, working heavy equipment — a real man — 
The Working Man. Certainly it cannot be denied 
that he is the left-wing hero, and if we have learned 
anything it is to keep our distance from left-wing 
heroes. 


4 


How does one come to such a conclusion? I begin 
with the proposition that the means of production 
must be in the hands of the people; that freedom, 
dignity, and nonalienated work are the rights of all 
people. I look to those who articulate those proposi- 
tions. But in fact, or in effect, they say: the means of 
production must be in the hands of men; work must 
stay in the hands of men; money must stay in the 
hands of men; freedom, dignity, and nonalienated 
work are the rights of men. They say: men have 
these rights and if there is anything left over — jobs, 
or money, or some excess freedom or dignity — we 
will parcel it out among the women. Needless to 
say, there is nothing left over, ever 

We must consider here women who work, 
women who do not work, and “women’s work.” 
Women who work are underhired, underpaid, first 
fired, excluded from trade unions, not given promo- 
tions or raises or training, are discriminated against 
in every way. Let working men make these com- 
plaints and the Left is involved, concerned, yea, 
outraged — picket lines are joined, books are 
written. The fact that the Left is mute on the 
wretched situation of working women is not acci- 
dental. On the contrary, it is a manifestation of male 
alliance to protect male power and male privilege: 
however poor men are , women must be poorer and 
thus dependent on male favor, in a state of econ- 
omic , and therefore sexual , bondage. 

Many women do not work at all in the labor 
market, particularly poor women who are impris- 
oned by the welfare system, children, lack of mar- 
ketable skills. Here the classic concern of the Left 
for the poor and unemployed vanishes — women 
are not thought of as poor or unemployed on their 
own; no, they are thought of as the wives of the poor 
and unemployed or they are not thought of at all. 

What is most astounding is how left-wing econo- 
mists totally ignore, as if it did not exist , so-called 
“women’s work.” Most women do domestic labor 
and are not paid for it. Most women do child rearing 
and are not paid for it. Women do slave labor, 
unrewarding, repetitive, involuntary, unskilled, 
unvalued, menial work that the poorest man will 
not do. Where are the left-wing writings on how 
women are the most viciously exploited labor force 
on the planet? We do not support capitalism 
(women’s identity is not invested in capitalism), but 
we too must survive under it. To survive, we must 
be paid for the work we do. 

That, of course, is not enough. Domestic work 
and child rearing are not women’s work — we reject 
that precious birthright along with the bullshit male 
rhapsodies which sentimentalize it. Scrubbing 
floors and washing shit off babies and out of diapers 
are not functions of gender fate or identity, unless 
only women have hands. 

Last, the Left, its economists, historians, and 
philosophers, have seemingly not yet noticed that 
we are the means of production. We are, in our 
bodies, the worker and the means of production. 
Never has there been such alienated labor. For us, 
control over our bodies is control over our lives. We 


are deprived of that control by a system of laws, 
customs, and habits which exploits us so viciously 
and absolutely that the real exploitation of The 
Worker pales by comparison. Why, we must ask, is 
his situation crucial to you, and ours invisible? It 
could not be because The Worker is poorer, or 
more exploited, than, for instance, his wife who 
either works or does not work at paid labor, and in 
either case does domestic labor and child rearing for 
no money, and is herself the means of production. It 
must be that he is a real man, that working class 
hero. She, as ever, is only a real woman. Clearly, 
self-proclaimed Marxists and communists of all ide- 
ologies remain capitalists, bosses, and shameless 
exploiters until they develop serious feminist con- 
sciousness and commitment. 


5. Feminism and Fucking 

“The only real love I have ever felt 
was for children and other women. 
Everything else was lust , pity, 
self-hatred, pity, lust.” 

This is a womans confession. 

Now, look again at the face 
of Botticellis Venus , Kali , 
the Judith of Chartres 
with her so-called smile. 

Adrienne Rich 

Every act of becoming conscious 
(it says here in this book) 
is an unnatural act 

Adrienne Rich 

... Vm a lesbian, right? And I don’t 
have to love ’em, I don’t have to fuck 
’em, and I damn sure don’t have to 
depend on ’em, and that is freedom . . . 

Shirley, from Phyllis Chesler’s 
Women and Madness 

The world was so recent that many 
things lacked names, and in order to 
indicate them it was necessary to point. 

Gabriel Garcia Marquez, 

One Hundred Years of Solitude 

Women’s oppression, body and soul, takes place 
every day. It is the fabric of daily existence, unceas- 
ing, unrelenting, built into law, custom, and habit. 
Women survive by submitting, by learning the 
slave mentality and glorying in it. Women advance 
in this society by being good women (i.e., cunts, 
chicks, pieces of ass, etc.) just as blacks advance by 
being good niggers. 

When one stops playing the slave’s game, the 
world falls apart. Nothing is left. Nothing that one 
learned before works anymore. How does one walk, 
talk, dress, play, think, love, differently? Each min- 
ute, how and what does one do? The world becomes 
a very dangerous place. When one stops playing the 
slave’s game, one must start to invent every minute 


5 


of one's life. There are no forms which already exist 
to show how, and there are no liberated communi- 
ties where exemplary people lead exemplary lives. 
One lives on the edge of a personal world collapsed, 
in direct opposition to the whole world of reality 
and power, and what then can one do except 
invent? 

The point here is that we do not have the luxury 
of being able to abstract our protests or resistances 
— we must live in our bodies and our bodies must 
live in patriarchy, subject to continuing violation, 
harassment, and contempt. There are no neutral 
areas — areas in which “ sexism does not matter. In 
particular, sex, the home, and romance are not 
neutral areas. Nothing is more political to a feminist 
than fucking — nothing is less an act of love and 
more an act of ownership, violation; nothing is less 
an instrument of ecstasy and more an instrument of 
oppression than the penis; nothing is less an expres- 
sion of love and more an expression of dominance 
and control than conventional heterosexual rela- 
tion. Here the war mentality makes a visitation on 
our bodies and the phallic values of aggression, 
dominance, and conquest are affirmed. 

To transform the world we must transform the 
very substance of our erotic sensibilities and we 
must do so as consciously and as conscientiously as 
we do any act which involves our whole lives. There 
are two emerging feminist erotic models: 
lesbianism and androgyny. Lesbianism is a 
celebration of womanhood, the core erotic act in an 
emerging womens culture. Androgyny has to do 
with the obliteration of gender distinctions and sex 
roles, and ultimately of gender itself. 


Both of these models must compel those who 
understand that systems of oppression are cancers 
which grow from and originate in the twisted sexual 
model, which is the patriarchal notion of normalcy, 
called dominance and submission. We say, oppres- 
sion begins where life begins, in the act of fucking, 
and revolution must begin in the same place, or it 
has not begun at all. 

6. Conclusion 

There is only one choice. Call it 
freedom. 

Marge Piercy 

Grace Paley was telling me about her trip to Russia 
and she said — 

anti -Jewishness is the pathology of Rus- 
sia, and of the whole of Western Europe , 
just as anti-blackness is the pathology of 
Amerika , and being anti-woman is the 
pathology of the world. 

The pathology of being anti- woman, or woman 
hating, is the warp and woof of the world. Cure it, 
and the world as we know it — its cruel and system- 
atized oppression, the suffering of its wretched mul- 
titudes — must collapse. Cure it, and we transform 
human life and create human community. Con- 
tinue to nurture that same pathology, to call it love 
and normalcy, and our history will be in the future 
what it has been in the past — Dachau, Hiroshima, 
Viet Nam; rape, sexual torture, women in chains. 


Andrea Dworkin is the author of Woman Hating (Dutton, 1974) and Our Blood (Harper and Row, 1976). 


Cover drawing by Janet McLaughlin. 


FROG IN THE WELL is a collective publishing and distributing short, inexpensive pamphlets covering a broad 
range of topics. We welcome suggestions for articles and other literature which you would like to see us print 
and/or distribute. Stores, groups, and individuals interested in purchasing and/or distributing Frog in the 
Well literature in bulk are encouraged to contact us at P.O. Box 1001, Palo Alto, CA 94302. 


6